Purpose:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of pre-Descemet endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in cases of endothelial decompensation.Methods:This was a prospective, randomized, interventional study conducted at a tertiary eye hospital in North India. Thirty eyes of 28 patients with corneal decompensation were randomly subjected to PDEK (n = 15 eyes) and DMEK (n = 15 eyes). Preoperative demographic details, surgical indications, uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, anterior and posterior segment details, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, endothelial cell count, and corneal aberrometry tracing on wavefront analysis were recorded. Patients were followed up for 6 months postsurgery. Visual and graft survival outcomes were assessed.Results:Intraoperatively, a surgeon reported better ease of preparation and intracameral handling with PDEK grafts. Both groups showed comparable improvement in visual acuity, contrast, and high-order aberrations. A decrease in central corneal thickness was significantly higher in DMEK (196 ± 26 vs. 140 ± 14 μm) patients. DMEK grafts were significantly thinner than PDEK grafts at the 6-month follow-up (16 ± 2.17 vs. 27.2 ± 1.93 μm). Endothelial cell loss (35% in DMEK vs. 33.4% in PDEK, P = 0.48) and rise of intraocular pressure (from 15.33 ± 2.85 mm Hg to 15.53 ± 2.2 mm Hg in the DMEK group vs. from 14.6 ± 1.99 mm Hg to 16.2 ± 1.43 mm Hg in the PDEK group) were comparable. Rebubbling rates were higher in the DMEK group (3/15, 20%) compared with the PDEK group (1/15, 6.66%; P = 0.165).Conclusions:DMEK and PDEK were comparable for both quantitative and qualitative visual outcomes and anatomically for graft survival at the 6-month follow-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.